This
matter comes before the Court pursuant to Defendants Chase
Bankcard Services, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 27),
filed on January 13, 2017, and Trans Union, LLC's Motion
to Dismiss or for More Definite Statement (Doc. # 28), filed
on January 25, 2017. Plaintiff Iris Green filed responses on
March 21, 2017. (Doc. ## 41, 42). For the reasons that
follow, the Motions are granted and the Complaint is
dismissed with leave to amend.

I.
Background

In
December of 2015, Green realized that there was inaccurate
information on her credit report, which she obtained from the
consumer reporting agencies, Defendants Experian Information
Solutions, Equifax Information Services, and Trans Union.
(Doc. # 1 at ¶¶ 7, 10). Green disputed the
inaccurate reporting by Chase and requested that the three
consumer reporting agencies update her credit report
“to correct the inaccurate reporting by [] Chase to the
credit reporting agencies.” (Id. at ¶
11). Green “specifically disputed the account listed on
[her] credit report reported by [] Chase due to mathematical
errors and demanded its correction.” (Id. at
¶ 12).

According
to Green, Chase is a “furnisher of information”
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) as well as
“a creditor and debt collector as defined by” the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) and the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), who has
“attempted to collect a consumer debt from [Green]
within the last two years.” (Id. at ¶ 4).
Green also alleges that Chase “communicat[ed] with
[Green] knowing that [] [Green] is represented by undersigned
counsel.” (Id. at ¶ 25).

Experian,
Equifax, and Trans Union received Green's dispute letter
and then “upon information and belief, sent either a
consumer dispute verification form and/or an electronic
automated consumer dispute verification form to []
Chase.” (Id. at ¶ 13). Nevertheless,
“despite having received a dispute letter from [Green]
and from undersigned counsel, Defendants failed to properly
conduct a reasonable investigation and make the correction to
[Green's] credit profile.” (Id. at ¶
14). As a result, Green alleges she incurred damages,
including her “impaired ability to rebuild [her] credit
worthiness, ” third-parties being misinformed about
Green's account, her “inability to obtain and
benefit from new credit, ” and the “mental and
emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment of
credit denials.” (Id. at ¶ 15).

Green
initiated this action on November 23, 2016, alleging
violations of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq.,
by all Defendants, as well as violations of the FDCPA, 15
U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq., and the FCCPA, Fla. Stat.
§§ 559.55 et seq., by Chase. (Doc. # 1). Equifax
and Experian filed their Answers on December 30, 2016. (Doc.
## 16, 19). Chase then filed its Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. #
27), on January 13, 2017, and Trans Union followed with its
Motion to Dismiss or for More Definite Statement, (Doc. #
28), on January 25, 2017. Green responded on March 21, 2017.
(Doc. ## 41, 42). The Motions are now ripe for review.

II.
Legal Standard

On a
motion to dismiss, this Court accepts as true all the
allegations in the complaint and construes them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff. Jackson v. Bellsouth
Telecomms.,372 F.3d 1250, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004).
Further, this Court favors the plaintiff with all reasonable
inferences from the allegations in the complaint.
Stephens v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.,
901 F.2d 1571, 1573 (11th Cir. 1990)(“On a motion to
dismiss, the facts stated in [the] complaint and all
reasonable inferences therefrom are taken as true.”).
However,

[w]hile a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a
plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his
entitlement to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)(internal citations omitted). Courts are not
“bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as
a factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478
U.S. 265, 286 (1986). Furthermore, “[t]he scope of
review must be limited to the four corners of the
complaint.” St. George v. Pinellas Cty., 285
F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002).

Alternatively,
when a pleading is “so vague or ambiguous that the
[defendant] cannot reasonably prepare a response, ” the
court can order the plaintiff to plead a more definite
statement of the claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). But, “[t]he
court should not do so if it would frustrate the concept of
notice pleading.” Blair v. Philips Elecs. N. Am.
Corp., No. 8:16-cv-3529-T-30JSS, 2017 WL 770960, at *1
(M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2017)(citing U.S. by Clark v. Ga.
Power Co., 301 F.Supp. 538, 544 (N.D.Ga. 1969)).

III.
Analysis

A.
Chase's Motion

1.
FCRA

In
Count I, Green alleges that Chase violated numerous sections
of the FCRA, including 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681s(2)(B),
1681g, and 1681i. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 18). The Court notes
that § 1681s(2)(B) is inapplicable in this action
because that section governs the administrative enforcement
of the FCRA by the Federal Trade Commission. 15 U.S.C. §
1681s. And, although mislabeled in the Complaint, Green
quotes § 1681s-2(a), which prohibits furnishers of
credit information from providing false information.
“However, the statute explicitly bars private suits for
violations of this provision.” Peart v.
Shippie, 345 F. App'x 384, 386 (11th Cir. 2009); see
also § 1681s-2(c)(1) (stating that § 1681s-2(a)
does not create a private right of action).

Still,
the FCRA does create a private right of action for the
enforcement of another section Green cites, §
1681s-2(b), which “requires furnishers of credit
information to investigate the accuracy of said information
upon receiving notice of a dispute.” Peart, 345 F.
App'x at 386 (citing § 1681s-2(b)). Thus, the Court
will analyze Green's claim under § 1681s-2(b).

Section
1681s-2(b) states:

After receiving notice pursuant to section 1681i(a)(2) of
this title of a dispute with regard to the completeness or
accuracy of any information provided by a person to a
consumer reporting agency, the person shall-

(A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed
information;

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.